In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

The fact that the number 8 side can dominate the number 2 side should be seen as a positive for the test game IMO. The top sides may not be the best top sides of all time, but there would't have been many eras where the number 8 side could play as well as New Zealand have over the last 4 days.

To answer the originl question, no. Except for RSA most of the other teams could pretty much beat each other which makes for exciting cricket imo. Even RSA (IMO) would be hard done to win in India and away to Pakistan. Great time for cricket.

The fact that the number 8 side can dominate the number 2 side should be seen as a positive for the test game IMO. The top sides may not be the best top sides of all time, but there would't have been many eras where the number 8 side could play as well as New Zealand have over the last 4 days.

Yeah I absolutely agree but cricket fans in general seem pretty top tier focused for some reason. Maybe it's because of the country and era I've grown up following cricket through but I've always felt that cricket fans lack an appreciation for the difference between decent and crap. If you're not world class then no-one cares about you and the standard of cricket seems to be measured in many people's eyes by the numbers of 'stars' in the game who seem a class above.

That the standard of Test cricket at the moment seems to be put down because of the lack of truly dominant standout players confuses me somewhat; isn't the fact that fewer players or indeed are soaring ahead of the pack a good thing for the strength of the game? Sure we don't have as many Pontings or Muralis at the moment but we also don't have as many Matthew Harts or Xavier Marshalls so Test cricket is closer than ever. Closer doesn't always mean the standard is better if we've merely had a drop off in standard from the top nations/players and I get that people are saying that's what we've had here, but I don't think it's just that.

Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-03-2013 at 11:42 AM.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

emphatic YES, because the following former constants which made test cricket so intriguing are currently not present:

no current flamboyant great Windies batsmen
no great intimdating Windies fast bowler
no magical Pakistani fast bowler
no current Indian batting great, who is currently still great
no strong Australian team

Yeah I absolutely agree but cricket fans in general seem pretty top tier focused for some reason. Maybe it's because of the country and era I've grown up following cricket through but I've always felt that cricket fans lack an appreciation for the difference between decent and crap. If you're not world class then no-one cares about you and the standard of cricket seems to be measured in many people's eyes by the numbers of 'stars' in the game who seem a class above.

That the standard of Test cricket at the moment seems to be put down because of the lack of truly dominant standout players confuses me somewhat; isn't the fact that fewer players or indeed are soaring ahead of the pack a good thing for the strength of the game? Sure we don't have as many Pontings or Muralis at the moment but we also don't have as many Matthew Harts or Xavier Marshalls so Test cricket is closer than ever. Closer doesn't always mean the standard is better if we've merely had a drop off in standard from the top nations/players and I get that people are saying that's what we've had here, but I don't think it's just that.

It's weird because theoretically, if the standard of teams ranked, say 4-10, all became much worse, then the top three would seem more dominant, and many would say they're rivalling the greatest teams of all time. I'd say test cricket is close to an all time high in terms of worldwide competitiveness. It's one of the reasons I think they'll never be a player who can get close to Bradman. They'd have to be entirely flawless because there's so many more sides for a player to struggle against and a wider variety of conditions to play in.

It's also one of the reasons I think the whole "test cricket is dying thing" that the media like to throw at us every month or so, isn't going to come to fruition. That results are so unpredictable, and most series are pretty close, makes the game much more interesting for the majority of countries. If it were just Australia and England dominating everyone else then the interest in the game for those countries may wane.

There definitely aren't so many outstanding players as there were, and those that there are tend to be less extravagant both in personality and the way they play the game, but that's not the same as the overall standard dropping

Tests are a lot more interesting nowadays. Except in Lanka, boring draws have almost completely been eliminated. There is no overwhelmingly dominant team like Australia or Windies. SA are getting there but still have a long way to go.

As far as the quality of players go, I would wait for a few more years before pronouncing judgments on the quality of players in the current era. In the 90s, we knew we had damn good players, but those reputations were built over time and the same players were elevated to greats and legends based on their performances in matches also played in the late 90s and early 2000s.

There is every possibility that players from the current crop (ABDV, Amla, Kohli, Pujara, Bravo, Kane, Junaid, Finn etc) may reach that level in the coming years.

I also think there is a tendency to only remember the great players from past eras, and less so the average players. People may look back on this era and remember the likes of Steyn, Philander, KP, Clarke, Chanderpual, Sanga, Amla, Ajmal as well as others who might go on to be great such as Southee, Boult, Roach. Greats from a wide variety of teams.

^ +1. Nostalgia is a cognitive bias. There were so many crappy players in the 90s who fell by the wayside because of their mediocrity and the only ones who are repeatedly referenced in cricketing articles, old youtube cricketing clips are the greats.

It is in a way very unfair to the modern day cricketer to be constantly considered inferior while being compared to the cream of the preceeding generations.

Lol, unfashionable team gives big fancy team a scare. Test cricket is now ****.

Crawl back in your hole and go **** to some Jeff Thomson books where he claimed he bowled 300kph you miserable sod.

Originally Posted by Bahnz

I need u like Henry Nicholls needs batting school
He was terrible in that series
I need u like Ross Taylor needed to be fit
He's way better than Henry Nicholls
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that ****** test series too
Losing to Australia sucked and I miss you

Love test cricket atm ftr, and not just because NZ are doing okay in this series. The past few years have been so unpredictable and we've seen some great tests.

Best innings has to be Clarke's 150 in SA where he played the much vaunted dominant innings against the best attack on a green top, something claimed to have occurred in every other innings in the 70s and 80s but didn't.

But test cricket is at its lowest ebb so Clarke can go suck a fat one obvz.